Re: [PATCH] issue 3342 - the right patch!

Julian Foad wrote on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 at 13:47 +0100:
> Hi Daniel. This all looks great but I think it makes an unintended
> behaviour change. If 'foo' is non-existent, then:
>
> Running svn v1.6:
                  , not in a WC:
> [[[
> $ svn up foo
> Skipped 'foo'
> ]]]
>
> Running your version, not in a WC:
> [[[
> $ svn up foo
> Skipped 'foo'
> Summary of conflicts:
> Skipped paths: 1
> ]]]
>
> That's good.
>

...

> Running your version, in a WC:
> [[[
> $ svn up foo
> At revision 38693.
> ]]]
>
> That's the unintended change. The failure to print "Skipped 'foo'" is

It's not a change --- svn16 has the same output when inside a WC.

> serious. The fact that it prints "At revision ..." is not so serious: we
> could accept that (in addition to a "Skipped" message) because it is
> analogous to the case of updating a versioned child of a versioned
> directory.
>

I think in this case the file *really* isn't skipped --- for example, if
the wc is at r4 and 'foo' was created at r5, then 'svn up foo' works.

(I'm not saying this is the way it *should* work. But this is how it
*does* work in 1.6.)

> - Julian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2382884
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2382888
Received on 2009-08-12 15:08:21 CEST